Editor’s note: Ralph Munro, the long-time Republican secretary of state for the state of Washington, has been monitoring the debate at BizTimes.com about high-speed rail in Wisconsin. Munro decided, along with three other Republican officials in the state of Washington, to write the following entry for the Milwaukee Biz Blog. Note, Munro has performed some consulting work for Talgo Inc., the Spanish company that will build high-speed railcars in Milwaukee.
Wisconsin Republicans opposed to higher-speed rail might want to take a second look. We are four GOP elected officials who worked together to bring Talgo and higher-speed rail to the Vancouver (British Columbia)-Seattle- Portland corridor with remarkable results.
Like Wisconsin, Washington and other states find themselves forced to make hard choices when spending tight public funds. Not only does everyone want government to do more with less, it is also vital to get the best results for the money spent.
So, why are Wisconsin’s GOP gubernatorial candidates lining up in favor of road spending only and against resource-efficient passenger trains?
Here in Washington State, we initiated higher-speed rail capabilities in 1993. After reviewing the benefits of various rail providers, it was our belief that Talgo had the finest, most cost-effective trains for our system. Local aerospace machinists were trained to build and maintain the cars in Seattle, just as they are about to do in Wisconsin.
Since that time, we have been upgrading the system incrementally and the public has responded with steadily increasing ridership. In fact, new ridership is growing by leaps and bounds. Though we began at less than 100,000 passengers per year, we are fast approaching 800,000 riders annually. And “fare box recovery” is growing at a much faster pace than other public transit systems.
Each and every year, our two states and the Canadian province of British Columbia complete necessary road and track work so that we can continually increase our speed and reduce the time required for travel between corridor destinations.
As they are in Washington State, rural communities in your neighboring states of Illinois and Iowa are now embracing rail. Just two tracks can carry as many passengers as 10 lanes of road traffic - railroads move more people using less land.
Trains also use less energy per passenger than automobiles require, are 11 times safer than auto travel and require fewer public dollars than highways do. With AAA calculating the typical cost of driving at 62¢ per mile and Amtrak fares averaging just 26¢ a mile … taking the train becomes the smart way to go.
“But what would a Milwaukee-to-Madison passenger rail corridor do for the rest of Wisconsin?” passenger train critics ask.
A similar question might have been asked all across the United States when the Interstate freeway system was begun in 1956. It didn’t serve every state entirely then, and still doesn’t. But all of Washington and all of Wisconsin benefited through connecting trunk highways and roads.
Similarly, express buses can extend the benefits of fast and affordable train travel to the entire state, the way they do in California, where half of all intercity train riders use bus connections to outlying towns as their rail network grows.
Passenger trains are becoming as vital to a region’s ability to remain competitive as broadband internet is. Nations from China to Argentina, and states from Washington and California to Illinois and Iowa - all are investing in passenger rail. If these competitors are investing in passenger trains, can Wisconsin really afford not to?
We invite all political leaders to consider our track record and then take a second look at rail as part of a relevant and comprehensive package of transportation solutions.
Our very best to you,
Ralph Munro, retired GOP secretary of state for the state of Washington State.
Sid Morrison, retired member of Congress and retired transportation secretary for the state of Washington.
Karen Schmidt, longtime GOP legislator from 23rd District and executive director of the Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board.
Bruce Agnew, former GOP Snohomish County Councilman and director of the Cascadia Institute.
49 Comments
Supporters of high speed rail should join die-hard Kodachrome users. Give it up. It's obsolete. There are not enough people riding the current rail, and even fewer will exist over time. It's inconvenient and limited and will have to be subsidized. Spend the money on schools and infrastructure and health care.
Great posting by Mr. Munro et al.
The problem is that there are too many conservative ideologues and talk show hosts in Wisconsin who see political gain in attacking rail transit. Let's hope they will be persuaded by these outspoken rail advocates.
I had had my say here - - http://www.biztimes.com/blogs/milwaukee-biz-blog/2010/8/24/high-speed-train-should-just-roll-right-through-waukesha-county
Big surprise, a RINO that is a consultant for Talgo is in favor of the train.
Here's the thing. I'm not from Milwaukee, but I live here and own a business here now. Republicans from Milwaukee would amazed to learn that Republicans in other states are very, very supportful of high-speed rail. They view it as an economic development/job creating/competitive tool. The one thing I've noticed about this market is that for whatever reason, Milwaukee's talk radio guys all scream whenever they hear anything about passenger rail, as if it's some type of liberal conspiracy, and they get their masses all riled up against it. This doesn't happen in other states. In fact, in many states, it's the business community that has been leading the way FOR improved passenger rail. It's just weird here because those radio guys are freaks, and too many people are afraid to do their own thinking for themselves. Dittoheads indeed!
Bill, I don't listen to talk radio, but I am a former business owner and I would not invest in building this train. Unless I could profit from the subsidies, however. I just think we have better things to do with our money. Maybe when we are flush again we can consider it, but for the moment we need to use our money wisely.
Mr. Marsh? Mr. Bark? Mr. Walker? Oh, and did you read the Milwaukee Journal/Sentinel today?
800,000 annually? That's less than I-94 carries in 2 days. And if I read correctly this was built in 1993. If these numbers are correct; there is NO WAY we should think about a train. No Way. With numbers like that I don't see a reason to even debate. That's ridiculous. I don't care who you are or what side of the political line you may fall. Those numbers for the cost are insanity.
Given that I do not hold political office and I have no aspirations to do so, how does one explain a person like myselfs opposition to this line.
I see this as a common sense issue.
Sure a shiny new train might be nice to have, but who is going to use it? Again, we lack the population density to make something like this real successful. Complain about too many roads all you want, but 350,000 cars travesrse the zoo interchange everyday. Will 1/100th of those people use the train on a daily basis?
Jack, I'm confused why there will be less riders for rail in the future? Any study I have seen includes higher gas prices and higher density which lends itself to people searching for other options than the auto.
Bob J, that is comparing apples and oranges, you have to look at people that are going from MKE to Madison or Mpls not those just simply driving anywhere on I9
Bill, I too am not from MKE and have noticed business and private investors leading the charge for rail in MI, CA, MN, NC and FL. All of which are adding or constructing rail projects
Jacob, so will fares increase. Mine is a guess, but I also guessed Obama would be a decent president (though I didn't vote for him). The point is that we don't need it now.
There are here, and continue to be, the same opposition views that really are off point. The first is "not enough people to ride the train." You cannot limit your perspective of this issue to Milwaukee and Madison. This system is part of a national network, and it's key that our portion of the midwest be a part of that network and not stand on the sidelines.
Again "it's inconvenient and limited." For whom? For someone going to Waukesha, sure, use the car, pay for the roads, keep your carbon emissions up and and do your part to keep those BP profits up, too. But if your destination is Chicago, Madison, Minneapolis or St. Louis, this system will be ideal. (And you won't get charged extra for your baggage). We need to rebuild our business base and get in the global community. If all you do is drive to the mall, hey, I'm happy for ya.
800,000 riders annually? Terrific. You simply cannot compare mass transit numbers to highway traffic. Highway traffic includes everyone driving to the gas station. Plus trucks. This is a different system for a different purpose. This system is built to unite a region, not to connect suburbs.
Finally, the complaint about spending. This is an investment, and an intelligent one. The money spent here has little if anything to do with where our deficit problems are - health care, social security and medicare. Those are problems that have a different cause and a different solution. Individuals who lump everything into "government waste" and promise voters that they will "use the money elsewhere" ignore the facts (they can't) and deliberately blow smoke simply to get themselves elected.
Inconvenient for me Bob. If I have to drive from Waukesha to Milwaukee to catch a train to Madison, I'd rather drive and have my car with me. And only one train to Minneapolis at 3:55pm? Forget it.
AMEN, It is time to start thinking about our future and providing an improving environment that will help retain our young. Any civilized society, especially a region that is within that is capable of being a tech hub for 13 million people within 100 miles, must offer high speed rail.
You owe in to your kids to get out a little and see how the world must go. Wisconsin must not become the "fly over territory" between growth in the Chicago and Twin Cities. This is an issue that is a go and the rhetoric of contrived ignorance spewing on the airwaves should be allowed to die soon.
The federal government and our state government are nearly insolvent. Apparently this doesn't mean anything to the train proponents as they are like children that want a shiny new toy without any sense of its cost. As long as its paid with other people's money, they will keep spending.
None of the supporters of this train have ever discussed it with detailed, hard, projections regarding ridership, cost, jobs, annual subsidies, and operating expenses. And there certainly has been no hard, apples-to-apples comparison against road use with respect to cost per rider per mile, etc. It's all fluff, platitudes, and mindless emotion. None of which would be reasons to invest $1,000 in anything, much less $1 billion.
This train will not be convenient or cost effective (even with huge subsidies) to a large majority of the population. The train is redundant in that we already have highway, bus, and jet transportation to Madison, and the same to the twin cities, including an existing train line. There is no market demand for this train, it is a feel good waste of taxpayer money to meet a non-existent, unproven need.
PS-The Republican's that wrote this article are the reason why the republicans fell out of favor (especially with their base- a reason why I'm glad Tommy Thompson stayed retired from politics), just like the democrats are currently suffering. I'm glad most of these spendthrifts are retired, unfortunately they are probably collecting government pensions for their disservice.
PPS-How about an editorial about Gwen Moore's opposition to KRM?
So what's the point of posting this piece? Clearly Mr Munro is just another life-long tax-and-spend politician who chooses to call himself a republican. That, however, doesn't make him fiscaly conservative. And he's not some sort of rational voice from a large group of Wisconsinites that the pro choo-choo crowd see's as getting in the way of their train filled utopia. He's a shill for a company that stands to gain by this project moving forward.
What, Mr Munro, does "increasing farebox recovery" really mean? How much money is your train in WA actually losing every year? Growing at a faster pace doesn't mean much when the taxpayers are still on the hook for x millions vs the y millions we were 17 yrs ago.
"With AAA calculating the typical cost of driving at 62¢ per mile and Amtrak fares averaging just 26¢ a mile … " - $.62 per mile is the vehicle owner providing their own vehicle, gas(plus taxes), upkeep, operator, and insurance. What's the true cost of your Amtrak fare figure when you consider all the factors considered in AAA's auto figure. I'm
sure it's way higher per person passenger mile.
Anyone can shoot off unsourced figures as to ridership, true cost, and the like, but the fact is the taxpayers are tapped out and the insane spending has to stop.
I'll even humor the rail advocates. You argue the existing roadways are subsidized and are "money losers" as well so claiming rail will do those same things is a baseless arguement. Following that logic, why would you propose building basically a totally new system that is heavily subsidized as well? That train of thought makes no sense.
A rational person would upgrade as necessary our already well developed, and widely used system of transport- roads.
And, for the fellow commenter that alledges that this train spending has nothing to due with the massive debt issue our country has, but that the issue is all about SS, healthcare, and such, you're insane.
Those issues, along with many others, are causing debt. But, this IS real money being spent here. X billions of debt being bought by China is x billion that needs to be paid back. Wether it's for trains, ss, whatever.
I doubt you handle your person finances in such a fashion.
I find it somewhat curious that all you lefties are agreeing with a Republican who is taking money from the people that are to build the trains.....
I guess it is ok for him because he is on your side?
Republicans in other states that received high speed rail are turning cartwheels about it. They like the economic development/jobs that it will bring. People in both parties in other states that applied but did not get a piece of the high speed action are mad as heck and think they have been left out in the cold. They would gladly take the money that Wisconsin seems to be resisting. It's a shame that Wisconsin is even having this debate. Makes us look like dorks on the national stage ... All the way to the state of Washington!
At least the money spent on this infrastructure won't disappear into thin air like those areas very precious to the GOP -- tax cuts and the military. Studies have shown that property values around rail stations goes up.
Look, anything can look inane and ridiculous if you make the time span short enough. Everything -- including right wing talk radio -- took time before it took off and it all depends on the commitment of the sponsors to make it work.
As mentioned previously, this is a start and if Sykes and Belling were around when the interstate highway system was proposed, we'd still be buying our groceries from corner mom and pop stores and there would be no car industry, which eventually employed half the country.
Fortunately Ike named the project the National Defense Highway System. Maybe we should call it the trains the Ayn Rand Railways.
This kind of project takes vision, which the myopic right wing stubbornly and proudly refuses to have. It takes the rest of us who want the state to move ahead to have persistence and ignore the pitchfork wavers and mob masters.
Having been other places it is a pleasure to ride these systems while galling at the same realizing that we aren't allowed to have them because self-styled libertarians are loathe to advocate government doing anything visionary. This is because, God forbid, it might be government doing something right, which it actually does so often.
One point about the cost comparison between Amtrak and an automobile. The author is being totally dishonest or just plain stupid. For officials with a history of dealing with transportation issues, you would think they could at least correctly state the comparison. I'll be generous and assume they are dishonest.
AAA's cost includes all costs associated with owning a car. Unless you get rid of your car completely and only use other transportation sources, you will still have the fixed costs of owning a car. The true cost comparison if you keep a car, are the variable costs of driving- gas and maintenance.
Also, the Amtrak costs quoted by the author are only for the fare and doesn't include the true cost to the taxpayers for operating and subsidizing the train. This reflects the mentality of spendthrift politicians that think as long as someone else pays its free.
Finally, the true cost of using the train is not only in the fare, operating expenses, and capital costs. The largest additional cost for using the train is its cost of time and its inconvenience. Drive or take a bus to the train station, pay for parking at the station, wait for the train, find a ride from the train station, then repeat on the way back. All on a fixed schedule set by the train operators. This is why the train is not competitive, even with heavy subsidies, for most people. Add one or more people on the same trip, and the train becomes a totally ridiculous option.
I'm almost hesitant to walk into this room of screaming people, but I must. Let me ramp up on the comments of previous commentators who have correctly pointed out that talking about high speed rail as a Milwaukee to Madison line is ignoring the obvious interstate intention of the project.
The "people won't use it" argument has been answered by the increased usage on the Amtrak line between Milwaukee and Madison, which, by the way, is subsidized by the State of Wisconsin.
One only has to leave Milwaukee as I did on I-43 to go to Green Bay for the game, to realize the ultimate failure of bigger and better interstate projects. We crawled from Locust to Mequon . It was 4:00 pm. There was no accident, all lanes were open. The situational delays in traffic on city freeways beg for a mass transit solution.
Commuting from the suburbs is like banging your head on a wall. It will feel much better when you quit.
RE: Jordan- I drive to Badger games between Milwaukee and Madison, you don't need a train to get to the stadium, and you certainly can't afford to ride the train if you have more than one person in the car.
Jack Lohman writes: "Supporters of high speed rail should join die-hard Kodachrome users. Give it up. It's obsolete. There are not enough people riding the current rail, and even fewer will exist over time."
Jack, I'm sorry but the evidence contradicts you. The number of people taking rides on trains increases with each passing year. In the past 30 years, the number of rides taken on trains in the US has gone from 2.488 billion rides taken to 4.473 billion.
So no, there will be more riders over time, not less.
Bill, Joe, and other,
You guys have a funny definition of heavy subsidies on the taxpayer. Based upon other similar services run by other states, it is estimated that perhaps a subsidy of as much as $10 Million might be needed annually to keep the trains running. That works out to an individual taxpayer burden of about $1.77 per Wisconsin taxpayer.
Contrast that with the taxpayer burden last year of $112 per person just at the Federal level for our nation's highways in direct subsidies. That's on top of the burden carried via State, County, and City taxes for our roads.
Note, that I said direct subsidies. Those who actually drove a car, also further contributed to the Federal spending via the actual "user" fees, namely the fuel taxes.
So if you're a taxpayer trying to make ends meet, which is going to seem huge or a "heavy burden" to you? $112 or $1.77?
Joe Smith: suggest you go here: http://www.concordcoalition.org/about-us/about-concord-coalition
This is a very good place to learn about what is driving up our national debt and what we can and should do about it. Try as I might, I can't find the railroad link to Madison listed.
Bill Marsh: you drive to the Badger games in your car? The regional and global perspective you bring to these discussions is awesome. Badger games! I may have to reconsider my position here.
Jack, I had lunch with you the day you asked Coquette Cafe to go smokeless, lo, maybe 7 years ago. That was a sensible campaign and it has born fruit state-wide. You are to be congratulated for this mission accomplished.
But a train is not a cigarette - in fact trains will protect the overall health of everyone, by reducing noxious emissions from cars, by leaving more land open to filter rain and storm water, by reducing our debt to foreign oil states.
As a business man, I see this investment as worthy. The cost per mile of rail compared to cars is low. The use of land for facility is low. The capacity of a train is ten to one that of a lane of highway. I have seen that same statistic in the writings of William Lind and Paul Weyrich, two conservatives who began to understand rail and went on a mission to persuade Republicans (successfully in other states) and other citizens that rail IS the conservative position - lowering the cost of government dramatically.
AS a business owner who uses the train to Chicago i have to agree with the Republicans, this is a ram job. Why would you not look at the fact our current time between Milwaukee & Madison is too light to warrant this train. The burden on us tax payers over the next few yeas for the train depot, maintenance etc. will put this state deeper into a tax burden and cause every one in WI to have a minimum increase in their tax bill, worse then the Stadium tax.
Now as for Mr. Munro. This was a despicable display as a consultant for the train Co. to send the good folks of WI this diatribe, when you are clearly an impartial observer. (Naughty)
I want this state to grow as much as any other but a high speed train between Madison & Milwaukee is not it. Nor as suggested direct to Minneapolis is not a grand idea either.
So Dem or Rep. this idea is off track.
Hi Bill. I truly do understand the niceties of a train, but having traveled back and forth to MSP for 10 years, we STILL have only one train per day. Not enough interest, and a new high-speed rail is not going to increase that schedule. I'd be happy to use the current slow train if they'd just be more frequent, but even that is not justified.
I think at this moment it is an extravagance we can't afford. If it paid for itself that's different, but even going forward it will require Wisconsin subsidies that are better spent on schools and etc. Some day maybe; but not today.
And hey, we found out that smokers didn't quit eating, as Philip Morris projected. :-)
Christopher Carter writes: "The burden on us tax payers over the next few yeas for the train depot, maintenance etc."
The burden on taxpayers might go as high as $1.77 each, annually. Good luck buying a gallon of gas with that.
However, the odds are very good that it will actually be less.
If you're worried about the burden on taxpayers, start worrying about the $112 burden on every tax payer last year that the Fed spent on highways. Or worry about the $300 burden that Wisconsin dumped on taxpayers for roads & highways.
Reducing those will have a much bigger impact on people than trying to stop the train and its whopping $1.77 worst case scenario.
Jack Lohman writes: "I truly do understand the niceties of a train, but having traveled back and forth to MSP for 10 years, we STILL have only one train per day. Not enough interest, and a new high-speed rail is not going to increase that schedule. I'd be happy to use the current slow train if they'd just be more frequent, but even that is not justified."
Jack, that train between MSP & Chicago is often sold out. And Amtrak which used to add an extra coach car between MSP & CHI only during peak periods, now keeps that car on the train almost year round because it's so popular. The reason that there aren't more trains each day is because Amtrak isn't allowed to start new runs unless some entity is willing to pick up the tab for any loses. So far, neither Wisconsin nor Minnesota nor any other entity has stepped up to the plate.
As for interest, if tiny Lynchburg, VA population 67,720 can find an average of 9,170 riders per month for its new daily train service to/from DC and tiny Portland, ME pop 63,011 can find 460,474 passenger for their 5 daily round trips to Boston last year, then I'd say that it's a pretty safe bet that Madison pop 223,389 and Milwaukee pop 573,358 when combined with Chicago the 3rd largest city in the US can find riders for these trains.
And not that I would dare promise this for Wisconsin, but interestingly enough, the Lynchburg service ridership is so good that so far Virginia has not had to dip into the fund setup to help support the train. It's actually covering its expenses at present from the fare box.
Ralph Munro - YOU ARE A FRAUD to be touting high speed rail and collecting fees from a train mfgr (Talgo) Answer this 79 year old stupid male. If they built a high speed rail line from Milwaukee to Madison, How much time will it take me to get from my home to the train station and from the train station to my destination? Also, how to I get to and from the stations? By cab and at what cost? By local bus and who tells me how to get there by bus? Use common sense, Mr. Munro and forget about lining your pockets.
Alan, if "Amtrak isn't allowed to start new runs unless some entity is willing to pick up the tab for any loses," you are essentially saying that there WILL BE losses (or somebody would jump at sharing the gains). Not good enough for me.
And Lynchburg to DC is a far cry from MKE to Madison. But if, as you say (and if it is correct) my $1.77 per year tossed into the subsidy hat isn't going to kill me. Though the senselessness might.
James Parnau writes: "If they built a high speed rail line from Milwaukee to Madison, How much time will it take me to get from my home to the train station and from the train station to my destination? Also, how to I get to and from the stations? By cab and at what cost? By local bus and who tells me how to get there by bus?"
Gee, if we followed this logic we wouldn't have airplanes either. Which by the way you also help to subsidize with your tax dollars. In fact, in addition to subsidizing the FAA, we also help to subsidize something called Essential Air Services (EAS) where we all pay to fly jets into small airports that sometimes see no more than 2 or 3 passengers per day.
Jack Lohman writes: "Alan, if "Amtrak isn't allowed to start new runs unless some entity is willing to pick up the tab for any loses," you are essentially saying that there WILL BE losses (or somebody would jump at sharing the gains). Not good enough for me."
Jack, you are quite correct! I'll never tell you that rail or any other form of transit will make money. In general, they don't. Yes, there are rare exceptions on occasion, but as a general rule moving people is not a profit making business. Collectively over the last 30 years or so, the airlines have lost nearly $10 Billion. And that's despite subsidies, as well as interest free loans after 9/11.
Highways also don't make money, even most toll roads. That's why there was a bill being considered last year by Congress to prevent any toll roads from collecting money from the Highway Trust Fund. Too many states were considering selling off highways to get a quickie cash infusion figuring that someone else would have to pick up the pieces later on, or at least push the problem off onto the Fed.
But regardless of the fact that all forms need subsidies, trains are one of the more efficient ways to move people and typically require fewer subsidies than other methods. Especially when compared to buses.
According to the National Transit Database, which tracks all public transportation in our towns & cities, on average in this country it costs 40 cents to move 1 person 1 mile by commuter rail or heavy rail (subways & El's). To do the same job with light rail costs 60 cents.
On a bus it costs 80 cents per passenger mile, and that amount does not include the costs of fixing the damage that all those buses cause to our roads & highways. That expense falls squarely on taxpayer's shoulders since public transit agencies don't pay fuel taxes.
Add to that the fact that on average rail riders pay 52.8% of their operating costs via the fare box. Bus riders only pay 26.3% of their costs. This is why despite the hefty upfront costs; city after city is turning to rail to help the transportation mix. Just for comparison, Amtrak riders average around 66%.
Finally, the worst case estimates that have been projected for this train are $7.5 Million annually in needed subsidies. Many opponents have rounded that up to $10M annually. I took that later number, the $10M, and divided that by the US Census Bureau's latest estimate for the population of Wisconsin to arrive at the $1.77. Obviously that population number includes kids who in general don't pay taxes, but by choosing the high ball number claimed by opponents for my math it helps to compensate for the fact that kids don't pay taxes. So give or take maybe 50 cents, that number is in the ball park.
If the projected operating deficit is only $10 million per year, why not have the passengers pay the full cost? Or just how few passengers are expected to ride this boondoggle?
PS- The $10,000,000 doesn't include the real cost to taxpayers, as it excludes the initial capital costs of $800+ million, or about $32,000,000 per year at 4% straight interest. Also, does the $10,000,000 include depreciation and the money needed to rebuild tracks and buy new train sets after they become worn out? I doubt it.
PPS- The $10 million operating deficit could easily funded by making DOT employees pay their own pensions and/or retire at age 65 like we serfs.
Bill Marsh writes: "If the projected operating deficit is only $10 million per year, why not have the passengers pay the full cost? Or just how few passengers are expected to ride this boondoggle?"
Why should they have to when we subsidize every other form of transportation? Just because you don't like trains is no reason to force train riders to do something that you aren't doing every time you take your car out of the driveway.
Bill Marsh writes: "PS- The $10,000,000 doesn't include the real cost to taxpayers, as it excludes the initial capital costs of $800+ million, or about $32,000,000 per year at 4% straight interest. Also, does the $10,000,000 include depreciation and the money needed to rebuild tracks and buy new train sets after they become worn out? I doubt it."
If you want to worry about debt and interest, start worrying about the $34.5 Billion we just borrowed for our highways. That's going to hurt us long before this $800 Million will.
As for those rails and the train cars, they'll last much longer than our freeways and cars will. Average life of a train car is 30 to 40 years, and there are rail cars still on the road that are over 60 years old. Try that with you car. And the average freeway needs a repaving about every 5 to 6 years. There are trains running on tracks that were laid 50 years ago.
Alan, the $34.5 billion is spent on every Wisconsin road, not just the one between MKE-MAD.
Alan, I think most of us are worried about the additional borrowing our federal and local governments. Hence the reason most of us really don't want to spend money on a train that so few will ride. And just to point out, our state would have to borrow significantly less (ignoring the stimulus impact) if Mr. "Corrupt" Jim Doyle wouldn't have emptied the coffers in Wisconsin.
RE-Burden: A measure of comparison should be the cost per passenger per mile. The train compared with roads is a very wasteful and inefficient use of our limited resources (taxpayer monies). Because there will be very few riders for the train, compared with nearly the entire population which uses roads, this train is an unabashed boondoggle. This goes back to my point about the Talgo-paid editorial writer that is a supposed expert on transportation. He won't provide true apples to apples comparisons on the cost of trains vs. autos because the outcome would not support his lies.
Alan Burden writes:
Gee, if we followed this logic we wouldn't have airplanes either. Which by the way you also help to subsidize with your tax dollars. In fact, in addition to subsidizing the FAA, we also help to subsidize something called Essential Air Services (EAS) where we all pay to fly jets into small airports that sometimes see no more than 2 or 3 passengers per day.
Bad comparison. their is a benefit to me to take a plane to Colorado vs. Amtrak, time savings. There is no time or cost savings to take a train from Milwaukee to Madison.
You are absolutely correct about EAS!!! Let's get rid of it.
Jack Lohman writes: "Alan, the $34.5 billion is spent on every Wisconsin road, not just the one between MKE-MAD."
Jack, no, that $34.5B was part of the $69.616B spent by the Fed on Interestate Highways throughout the US. And that's an amount that gets spent every year, although last year was record. The $800M is a one time expendature that will last 40 years or more.
Sparky Phifer writes: "Alan, I think most of us are worried about the additional borrowing our federal and local governments. Hence the reason most of us really don't want to spend money on a train that so few will ride."
I worry about borrowing too. But which do you think added more to the National Debt, the $34.5 Billion borrowed for roads or the $7 Billion or so handed out for high speed rail?
As for few riding, that couldn't be further from the truth. Back in 1998 Tommy Thompson got Amtrak to run a test service to Watertown. That test ran for 88 days and saw 32,446 riders, that's an average of 368 people per day. And that was to Watertown and back when trains were less popular than they are today.
Easily available public records don't date back prior to 2003, but in 2003 the Hiawatha service carried 417,366 riders between Chicago and Milwaukee. Last year the Hiawtha's carried 738,231 rides. In 7 years ridership has almost doubled because trains are more popular today than they were in the recent past.
Bill Marsh writes: "RE-Burden: A measure of comparison should be the cost per passenger per mile. The train compared with roads is a very wasteful and inefficient use of our limited resources (taxpayer monies). Because there will be very few riders for the train, compared with nearly the entire population which uses roads, this train is an unabashed boondoggle."
My guess is that you already know the answer to this, which is why you brought it up. We threw more than a Trillion dollars at our roads over the years, while ripping out our RR's and even taxing them to help build the roads. So naturally it stands to reason that the shear number of people driving on them drives down the costs per mile.
Additionally it's near impossible to actually calculate a true cost per passenger mile because there is no accurate way to count all the miles driven, much less how many people were in the car. Then throw into the mix, trucks, buses, the myriad methods of funding by cities, counties, and states. At best, it's a guess.
However, if the playing field were more level, meaning that most people had a choice between a car or a train, I've no doubt that the subsidy per mile for the car would be much higher than the train. We can even find proof in this idea by looking at public transit. According to the National Transit Database, on average in this country it costs 40 cents to move 1 person 1 mile on commuter rail or heavy rail (subways & El's). It costs 60 cents to do the same job on light rail.
When we turn to the bus we find that it costs 80 cents per passenger mile, and that amount does not include fixing the damage that all those buses cause to our roads & highways. That expense falls squarely on taxpayer's shoulders.
Finally, what it costs per passenger mile is irrelevant if one is concerned about one's taxes or the national debt. The simple fact is that the subsidy per passenger mile in a car means nothing in that context. Spending $34.5 Billion is going to do a lot more to the National Debt and your taxes than spending the $800M being discussed here.
Bill Marsh writes: "This goes back to my point about the Talgo-paid editorial writer that is a supposed expert on transportation. He won't provide true apples to apples comparisons on the cost of trains vs. autos because the outcome would not support his lies."
First, note that 4 people wrote the above piece, not 1. Second, it says he has provided some consulting work. It doesn't say what kind. For all we know he could have advised them on seating in the cafe car. Hardly a reason to dismiss him, much less 3 other people who don't have a connection with Talgo.
Finally, Wisconsin will still buy those Talgo's without regard to whether or not the line gets extended to Madison. The Talgos will just run between Milwaukee and Chicago if by some miracle a new Governor manages to kill the line to Madison. So Mr. Munro gains nothing by lying to you about the benefits of extending service to Madison. If indeed he will somehow benefit by the sale of the Talgo trains to Wisconsin, he's going to get that benefit no matter what.
So sure, if you want to look for excuses as to why he's lying to you, I'm sure you can continue to come up with them. But the simple reality is he is speaking from his former position as someone who has seen the benefits of rail in his own state, a state that he worked for. A state by the way, that continues to enjoy those benefits and expand the service.
Dave Holzem writes: "Bad comparison. their is a benefit to me to take a plane to Colorado vs. Amtrak, time savings. There is no time or cost savings to take a train from Milwaukee to Madison."
No Dave, it was teh perfect comparison. He was citing a list of reasons about why rail won't work. Those very same problems exist with air travel and it doesn't stop people from using planes. The point was that those reasons aren't valid. People work around them to fly and they work around them to ride trains.
As for time and costs, my bet is that you're not fully accounting for your costs or your time. I can be doing work while I'm on the train; work that I can't do while driving my car or even on an airplane. That makes my time much more valuable to me.
And regarding costs, I'm betting that you're just figuring on gas. One has to add in all the other costs, like insurance, maintenance and such. Costs that the IRS tells us equaly 50 cents per mile to drive your car. And that's before we throw the subsidies to the roads on top of that 50 cents.
You are absolutely correct about EAS!!! Let's get rid of it.
Reading through several of these blogs, it seems you all have good points to make. Mr. Munro talks about the railroad in the state of Washington. That seems to fit for them. I just don't believe many will use the RR between Madison and Milwaukee. Also, once you get to Madison, you have to find other transportion to downtown, which is added to the cost. With this RR noit having many customers, the cost of the ticket will be extranomical. I ride the train from Fox Lake, IL, or Antioch, IL, to Chicago but the fares are really cheap. I do realize this railroad between Milwaukee and Madison might be just the beginning if they could continue on to St. Paul/Minneapolis. I would use it then. But just to go to Madison and the complications of getting to where I want to go in Madison, I'll never use it. It's not a bad ride from Lake Geneva. In today's economy with people not having jobs, having to pay a fee if you can't afford insurance, taxes going up and more spending, spending, spending in Washington, Wisconsin taxes payer's just cannot afford this railroad at this time. I may not know all the details involved as you all pretty much seem to know, but I do know taxpayers in our state cannot afford this. Plus I truly believe this plan will end up being a huge failure because I don't believe they'll have enough customers to support it. It might create some jobs but I don't believe it will be sustainable as people will continue to drive to Madison. I believe the tickets will be too costly plus the added cost to transport the customer to his/her destination. Maybe you all can afford a taxie but I can't. Also, if I had an appointment some place in Madison, I'd have to leave hours before my appointment to get there on time. I hope this railroad is squashed once our new governor gets in office. It's just too costly for Wisconsin.
Norma,
The train station will be in downtown Madison; you don't need transportation to get to downtown, you'll be there when you step off the train. Perhaps depending on just where you want to go, you might need a very short taxi ride or maybe a short ride on a Metro bus.
And again, as I pointed out earlier, if 368 people on average per day turned out to ride a test train that ran from Watertown to Milwaukee for almost 3 months, then I've no doubt that people will be riding the train to Madison.
Finally in terms of too costly, you're ok with forking over $112 to the Fed last year for highways above and beyond what you gave them via the gas tax, and you're ok with providing $300 a year to the State of Wisconsin, but you find it too costly to contribute $1.77 per year for this train?
If there is a need rail will come. However current public transporation. mass transit is in place and is less costly and is underutilized. I don't know the transportaion situation of any other metro area other than Chicago. The need exists because other modes driving is very congested. That is not the case in Milwaukee/Wisconsin on any of the routes that this is being proposed. If it needed I would be for it,however it is not needed
1.77 per year, I need to see the math.
Keith Songstad writes: "1.77 per year, I need to see the math."
The studies have predicted a worst case scenario of $7.5 Million annually that would need to be covered. Opponents of the line have rounded that amount up to $10 Million annually to make it sound worse.
So I took that $10M and divided that by the population of Wisconsin 5,654,774, as reported by the US Census Bureau.
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/55000.html
Keith Songstad writes: "However current public transporation. mass transit is in place and is less costly and is underutilized."
Actually there is no "public mass transit" in place currently. However even if there were, rail would still be the cheaper alternative. As I noted above, according to the National Transit Database, it costs 40 cents per passenger mile for commuter rail & heavy rail, 60 cents for light rail, and 80 cents on a bus.
Alan,
You can not use the population of Wisconsin. No one from Rhinelander is going to use the Milwaukee to Madison train for a daily commute. Neither will you see grade schoolers in Oshkosh riding the train. There lies part of the issue. The people in Rhinelander can use the roads they pay for.
You will be surprised to know there is abundant mass transportation already in place; running between Madison and Milwaukee. Very efficient, very service oriented. But it is privately owned, run successfully and PAYS taxes rather than taking tax money from us.
Badger Bus. Try it. All the conveniences of the train but they help you with luggage and it costs 1/3 the train's projected ticket price and is not subsidized. Now your concerns are solved. What should we try to tackle next?
And no, I do not work for them.
Bob,
Whether or not people in Rhinelander ride the train is irrelevant when it comes to the fact that under the laws of this country & state they pay taxes. Therefore I can most certainly divide by the population of the state to arrive at a cost per taxpayer.
And people from Rhinelander in general are very unlikely to be driving their cars on I-90 out by LaCrosse with any regularity, but they still are paying for that highway. People of Rhinelander in general are unlikely to be regularly driving on I-94 south of Milwaukee, yet they still pay for that highway. And it's a very safe bet that anyone from Rhinelander or even Oshkosh is going to be driving their cars on I-H1 in Honolulu, but they still paid taxes towards that road too. So you can forget that argument; we all pay taxes for things that we'll never use.
As for Badger bus, first let me point out that my response to Keith was based upon the fact that he said "public mass transit". Badger is not public transit and therefore does not qualify in this context.
Second, to your point, Badger is most certainly subsidized. They run their buses on the subsidized highways enjoying the fruits of all of our taxes. And while I haven't actually looked into Badger, there are many such privately held bus companies that do enjoy still further taxpayer subsidies in the form of interest free loans to help them buy buses, and in one case that I know of in Michigan (Indian Trails) the state has actually purchased buses for them.
Again, I'm not saying that Badger has benefited in this manor, but it wouldn't surprise me to find out that they have. But regardless, they are still subsidized by virtue of the fact that they run on our heavily subsidized roads.